Civilization 5 Rants Thread

[kcd_swede]

Performance + Gameplay > Graphics.

I couldn't agree more. Well, ok, I could say that performance + gameplay >>graphics for TBS games in particular.

I don't even notice graphics in CiV. I generally play with the tile grid on and zoomed out to maximum and spend most of my time looking at and manipulating 2D unit icons that aren't any better (and in some ways much worse) than I used to get on a 386 (VGA) running Civ I. I'm NOT talking about the strategy level, which I never use.

Has anyone else repeatedly incorrectly identified which unit was selected and then moved it? As a person who never reloads, this is one of the most frustrating things about CiV "graphics" to me. I will never appreciate how fine the roof corners look with maximum tesselation (whatever that is).

 

[Iranon]

Technology should serve gameplay, not the other way round. A technologically simple but detailed game will be superior to one built to more advanced standards with everything culled that can't be done well/easily in them.

Whether it's gratuitious 3D before it could be pulled off well, increasingly linear shooters that require increasingly inane tricks to keep players on their toes, a tarted-up but non-interactive environment, gratuitious 1upt when that's a tricky concept in the larger picture... same problem.
Something that's abstracted to a sane and consistent level will play well and won't look bad 15 years later.

I want maybe 10-20 proper games for every 'playable technology demo', and sometimes it seems as if the ratio is reversed.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Technology should serve gameplay, not the other way round. A technologically simple but detailed game will be superior to one built to more advanced standards with everything culled that can't be done well/easily in them.

Whether it's gratuitious 3D before it could be pulled off well, increasingly linear shooters that require increasingly inane tricks to keep players on their toes, a tarted-up but non-interactive environment, gratuitious 1upt when that's a tricky concept in the larger picture... same problem.
Something that's abstracted to a sane and consistent level will play well and won't look bad 15 years later.

I want maybe 10-20 proper games for every 'playable technology demo', and sometimes it seems as if the ratio is reversed.

The difference wasn't so pronounced before. Doom/Doom2 were certainly 'playable technology demos' but their game play was still *really* good.

 

[OrsonM]

The difference wasn't so pronounced before. Doom/Doom2 were certainly 'playable technology demos' but their game play was still *really* good.

Doom rolled in at a time when all other titles were using the Wolfenstein engine and had an aproach that was heavy on game design. There was a lot of emphasis on creative solutions to make 3-d games seem innovative without spending much on technology or art.


Blake Stone had NPC scientists you had to talk to (way before Half-life), it had monsters interacting with vending machines (and vending machines you could use to regen life).


Corridor 7 Featured a random creepy Hallucination and had different types of vision (for night and for invisible monsters) and it even featured some pretty innovative shapeshifting monsters.

Doom had an emphasis on engine and art that just wasn't around at the time. Doom was not design heavy (in fact they fired their game designer at early stages of development). By the time Quake was around, being all around the same damn game as Doom, players were just not that impressed by the true 3d engine, prefering games like Duke Nukem 3d, which had a heavy emphasis on design and gameplay.

Somewhat recently, id again went for another technology heavy game with Doom3, but this time trying to learn from their past mistakes, by making it heavy on scripted events (because Half-Life did it). The result was a gameplay disaster that no one plays without the flashlight mod. If the game had stayed closer to the original Doom, all would had been forgiven (as it would had been a refreshing blast from the past).

It is also not much of a stretch, but would had anyone complained if Duke Nukem Forever had a much more dated engine (and thus a much lower price):

...if released 8 years ago, perhaps some of the dated jokes would have at least raised a smile

Why every FPS out there looks so dirty and pesimistic and features a sort of apocalypse? Do FPS designers need a hug?, what ever happened to adding a few colors to the experience? Even if this means they would have to make their games in a dated engine, it could be welcomed (there are more locations than the same besieged and runned down ship, city or planet).

 

[The_J]

Why every FPS out there looks so dirty and pesimistic and features a sort of apocalypse? Do FPS designers need a hug?, what ever happened to adding a few colors to the experience?

So you'd rather like to shoot white bunnies in green meadows?
You are a creepy person.


sure not serious here .

 

[OrsonM]

So you'd rather like to shoot white bunnies in green meadows?
You are a creepy person.


sure not serious here .

I was actually thinking of the old Star Trek, About 2 years ago I had to study the visual language of the old Star Trek for an unrelated work I was doing that had to use sci-fi elements. And since they had zero money, the set decorators often used the same set but with different lighting.


it was only logical to be so trippy...

Although it seems dated now (although beautiful at times), it's just strange that there are so many people that are fans of the old star trek, yet seem to despise it's old charming look. Trying to make it look badass just didn't work that well


my eyes!

Everything now is filmed using really expensive cameras to make it look like it was filmed with inexpensive "holga-like" cameras. Modern cameras do not have lens flares, these are added in post production. To make it look gritty and run down. This might be cool if only 1 or 2 movies or videogames did it, yet everyone is doing it.


The crappy camera lens must be the Nanosuit's only weakness!

Why does every game now has to be not only a FPS, but the same FPS over and over:
-Same story (same biblical undertones)
-Same enemies (zombie-ish / alien-ish)
-Same look and feel
-Same dynamics (you have a powersuit, the plot is something something conspiracy and the maps have, brace yourself, scripted events!... be still my heart)

Here's a neat article that talks about the same issues regarding videogames:

http://www.cracked.com/blog/the-6-most-ominous-trends-in-video-games/

 

[SuperJay]

Why does every game now has to be not only a FPS, but the same FPS over and over:
-Same story (same biblical undertones)
-Same enemies (zombie-ish / alien-ish)
-Same look and feel
-Same dynamics (you have a powersuit, the plot is something something conspiracy and the maps have, brace yourself, scripted events!... be still my heart)

I understand the frustration, but maybe you're just not looking hard enough to find innovative non-FPS games that depart from that formula? Such as....

(Psst... random recommendation: look to Double Fine Games as a small developer that consistently turns out high-quality, innovative, fun titles. They're best known for Psychonauts and Brutal Legend, but check out Costume Quest (a youthful Halloween trick-or-treating RPG!) or Trenched (alt-history WWI mechanized battle robots piloted by hirsute Marines!) as well.

 

[OrsonM]

I understand the frustration, but maybe you're just not looking hard enough to find innovative non-FPS games that depart from that formula? Such as....

That is... true. I have not heard of them. Double Fine looks really awesome.

 

[uat2d]

This thread is becoming more and more about rants on the gaming industry instead of just Civ5.

Why does every game now has to be not only a FPS, but the same FPS over and over:
-Same story (same biblical undertones)
-Same enemies (zombie-ish / alien-ish)
-Same look and feel
-Same dynamics (you have a powersuit, the plot is something something conspiracy and the maps have, brace yourself, scripted events!... be still my heart)

Dude... you forgot the Russians! Those damn ruskies and their world domination plans!

Amazing how in these games the world doesn't end with over a thousand radioactive shrooms as soon as the Russian Army steps anywhere near Anchorage.

 

[AlpsStranger]

This thread is becoming more and more about rants on the gaming industry instead of just Civ5.

I cannot agree with what most people seem to want. In the FPS genre I wouldn't necessarily mind just going into the past, but when you consider something like the 4X genre it is much more of a mixed bag.

Civ5 is disappointing and I won't dispute that. However, I am not sure that returning to Master of Magic is the right answer. The cold, brutal truth is that master of magic had terrible diplomacy, tons of unfixed bugs, and laughable balance(Paladins, anyone?) The answer isn't to go "into the past" blindly, but to hope for a better future.

 

[Iranon]

MoM worked on a balance of cheese. Sure, Paladins looked impressive but slingers and longbowmen could win the game far earlier. Barbarian units made attack buffs scale extremely well. Horsebows+rangers allowed ridiculous overland speed and shoot&run at a fairly low price. If racial balance was off, the problems were Halflings rather than High Men (inherent economic advantage from more food, best diplomacy, early and powerful UU, very strong starting units thanks to the Lucky trait).

Likewise, 11-book starts looked impressive but they were merely the most obvious choice. But sorcery+node mastery and double-discounted phantom warriors could arguably be more ridiculous. Or double-discounted artifacts + Alchemy + Archmage. Or a 0-book-approach and enjoying direct benefits while dumping all one's mana into gold for the economy.

Yes, it was buggy as buggery, the diplomacy was a bit of a joke, the AI wasn't too hot... but the game was so full of content that I loved it even when it was nigh-unplayable, and I still play it. In many places, the seemingly ludicrous balance actually works out quite well and there's a glorious sense of escalation - shiny new toys become available, but the basic things never become obsolete.
It's a far cry from the metrics-driven balance we start to take for granted, but in my opinion no worse for it.

 

[Thormodr]

MoM worked on a balance of cheese. Sure, Paladins looked impressive but slingers and longbowmen could win the game far earlier. Barbarian units made attack buffs scale extremely well. Horsebows+rangers allowed ridiculous overland speed and shoot&run at a fairly low price. If racial balance was off, the problems were Halflings rather than High Men (inherent economic advantage from more food, best diplomacy, early and powerful UU, very strong starting units thanks to the Lucky trait).

Likewise, 11-book starts looked impressive but they were merely the most obvious choice. But sorcery+node mastery and double-discounted phantom warriors could arguably be more ridiculous. Or double-discounted artifacts + Alchemy + Archmage. Or a 0-book-approach and enjoying direct benefits while dumping all one's mana into gold for the economy.

Yes, it was buggy as buggery, the diplomacy was a bit of a joke, the AI wasn't too hot... but the game was so full of content that I loved it even when it was nigh-unplayable, and I still play it. In many places, the seemingly ludicrous balance actually works out quite well and there's a glorious sense of escalation - shiny new toys become available, but the basic things never become obsolete.
It's a far cry from the metrics-driven balance we start to take for granted, but in my opinion no worse for it.

Yep. Still a great game to this day.

Picked up a copy off of GoG for $5.99 and I've put in a few games already.

Sure it may not be exactly balanced and it's got some bugs (1.40 seems to have fixed most of those though) but it's still a heck of a lot more fun than Civilization 5.

 

[uat2d]

By how much is Civ3 & C3C nowadays?

I got them both for how much, about 25€? And this was over 6 years ago, they must be really cheap now. Anyway, it may now be a oldie (I started lurking this forum by that time, when the mainpage was filled with Civ3 content and news of the upcoming Civ4 ) but it still is really much more fun and immerse than Civ5.

Sure, it could screw you over big time with the RNG and there was no overflow and all that (no overflow in Civ5 either) but it kept me always playing it when I was at home and always thinking about it when I wasn't. If you add the awesome expansion that was C3C and all the mods available here, it was really great, I played it for years.

What I find most upsetting about Civ5 is that, even when it was new, I didn't even wanted to play it in the weekends. Now I can't even play for an hour straight without felling bored out of my mind and quit the game.

 

[AlpsStranger]

MoM worked on a balance of cheese. Sure, Paladins looked impressive but slingers and longbowmen could win the game far earlier. Barbarian units made attack buffs scale extremely well. Horsebows+rangers allowed ridiculous overland speed and shoot&run at a fairly low price. If racial balance was off, the problems were Halflings rather than High Men (inherent economic advantage from more food, best diplomacy, early and powerful UU, very strong starting units thanks to the Lucky trait).

Likewise, 11-book starts looked impressive but they were merely the most obvious choice. But sorcery+node mastery and double-discounted phantom warriors could arguably be more ridiculous. Or double-discounted artifacts + Alchemy + Archmage. Or a 0-book-approach and enjoying direct benefits while dumping all one's mana into gold for the economy.

Yes, it was buggy as buggery, the diplomacy was a bit of a joke, the AI wasn't too hot... but the game was so full of content that I loved it even when it was nigh-unplayable, and I still play it. In many places, the seemingly ludicrous balance actually works out quite well and there's a glorious sense of escalation - shiny new toys become available, but the basic things never become obsolete.
It's a far cry from the metrics-driven balance we start to take for granted, but in my opinion no worse for it.

The trick, to me, is to get a new Master of Magic with yesterday's spirit and today's "metrics-driven balance." That is my ideal.

Also, 11 book starts were for n00bs

Just to be clear, I still consider BTS(with BUG mod) to be the dizzying pinnacle of the 4x genre so far. Civ5 isn't even close, sadly.

EDIT: More in agreement with the general spirit of the thread, would it kill a game like Civilization to use really sweet looking 2.5D?

 

[kiwitt]

Now I can't even play for an hour straight without felling bored out of my mind and quit the game.

I reached that point too ! ... however we are spoiled for choice in Civ IV, with all the well developed mods. I have only just started to try them out, after being so satisfied with what Civ 4 + 2 expansions had offered. I even tweaked one of the supplied mods to create my own version.

I am now playing RoM aND and will migrate my mod to this over the next years.

 

[AlpsStranger]

Yep. Still a great game to this day.

Picked up a copy off of GoG for $5.99 and I've put in a few games already.

Sure it may not be exactly balanced and it's got some bugs (1.40 seems to have fixed most of those though) but it's still a heck of a lot more fun than Civilization 5.

I agree that it is far better than Civ5, but it can't even come close to Civ4. Were the same design document approached today, with steady patching and modern concepts of balance available, it might *easily* trump Civ4(in my eyes) and become the best 4x.

The problem with a "balance of cheese," btw, is that it is wasteful. When you "balance" a game this way you render 80-90% of your units/spells/etc useless. It is much better to have everything reasonably balanced so that every entity is worth using under at least one strategy.

I don't mean balanced down to a fine goo either, and there can still be exceptionally potent units. However, an exceptionally potent unit/spell needs a justifying downside such as tech depth, limited deployment numbers, membership in a faction with counterbalancing weaknesses, etc.

A true successor to Master of Magic that combined the old(scope, concept, innovation) with the new(multiplayer, sensible diplomacy, a modern approach to balance, a BUG-level UI, steady patching, XML/Python/CPP Modding) would probably be the best game ever made. So, who wants to help me kidnap Soren Johnson, Brian Reynolds, Emperor Fool, and a bunch of the other modders?

 

[BSPollux]

Dont get what youre complaining about. Civ5 is absolutely perfect, superior to every single piece of human creation since we crawled out of the bush.

Its art is beyond Michaelangelo, the technic is beyond any scifi-geeks wetdreams and and no philosopher could ever hope to reach the same level of underlaying logic. And you can feel that those who created it loved the project more then a mother loves her first born child.

Noone may disagree, I have spoken.

 

[Tatran]

...I have spoken.

In the wrong thread.

From CivWorld it's clear the civ series are for hardcore fans, not casual players.
Civ5 can't be repaired and CivWorld will fail in its current state.

The current developpers are simply not good/talented enough to get the civ series in the right direction and make a worthy successor of civ4.

 

[MoonFlare]

How about a "new" old game that is superior to almost every modern game(not only Civ5)? X-COM:UFO Defence.
Not that abomination xcom that will be released next year. A perfect example of dumbing down a game into oblivion. Publishers ruin many great things...

 

[AlpsStranger]

How about a "new" old game that is superior to almost every modern game(not only Civ5)? X-COM:UFO Defence.
Not that abomination xcom that will be released next year. A perfect example of dumbing down a game into oblivion. Publishers ruin many great things...

Not always. Take GTA4 for instance. The "oldie" complaint about it is that you can't take 90 degree turns without applying brakes. It's sort of the opposite of the trend you're pointing to. Of course, I always thought the tanks and jet fighters in GTA worked against its theme, and I prefer the quasi-realistic arcade driving to the slapstick in the GTA3 series. Still, I don't think anyone can argue that the new driving model was a publisher decision. You can find it disagreeable, but I'm not sure anyone can make a convincing case that it represents a linear "dumbing down."

Besides, you can't really say that UFO Defence is superior to "almost every modern game." How would you evaluate it compared to, say, any of the GTA games or Civ4. I submit that any direct comparison cross-genre is pointless cheer leading that would, by nature, be entirely unconvincing.

Then you have people howling about the fact that you can't manually assign stats in Diablo 3. Good, I say. There were two ways to assign stats for a given build in Diablo 2, correct and incorrect. No actual choice involved. It was just enough rope to hang yourself and didn't represent a real choice. Find out what the biggest thing you want to wear requires and then dump the rest in something else. Rinse and repeat. With stats auto assigned we can focus on the far more interesting talent side of things.

I realize that many mature adults are concerned about the use of color in Diablo 3...



Cheer up kid! I'm sure that someone will release a mod that ignorantly savages Blizzard's art direction improves the game's appearance.